Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Robert Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University and a fellow of the British Academy in history and economics, is a member of the British House of Lords. The author of a three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, he began his political career in the Labour party, became the Conservative Party’s spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords, and was eventually forced out of the Conservative Party for his opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

Months after the referendum that shook the world, the fallout from Brexit, including the likely economic costs, remains unsettled. Theresa May's government is still wrestling with the basic question of what type of relationship with the EU Britain wants, while European leaders are struggling to develop a united front for negotiations.

Johnson and Corbyn... . No, no and no. I say this because I think Skidelsky is wrong about the UK belonging to the EU. We really need to stay in in order to ensure geo-strategic stability in the continent by talk, talk talk - endless diplomacy with perhaps the start of a transition away from neo-liberal economics.

A good column by someone who knows what he s talking abut. I will demur on one thing . The so called "rising tide lifting all boats has not worked from day one of the implementation of the Neoliberal economic theories .

Good article by Robert Skidelsky that highlights how unrestricted migration has dampened the wages of the local British who are at the same time suffering from Tory funding cuts to public services.

For too long, many commentators have misunderstood the Brexit vote and put it down simply to an "anti-immigration sentiment". They then lump this "anti-immigration sentiment" to issues of race and identity. Given that most of the British working class voted for Brexit, this anti-immigration narrative then takes on a pejorative tone: that the poor are racist bigots (compared to the open-minded metropolitan elite).

But to link immigration solely to identity politics misses a key point: that in the UK, there is a severe problem of companies hiring cheaper Eastern European workers who undercut the pay of native Brits. These immigrants then strain public services and drive up housing prices among local communities already suffering from Tory austerity cuts.

In fact, it was curious that few on the Left made the case for Brexit given that the EU is a neoliberal institution and its freedom of movement was creating a race to the bottom in terms of wages and living standards for the British working classes.

However, a vote for Brexit by the working classes was NOT a vote for a Tory-style Brexit of more austerity, nor a vote for right-wing trickle-down economics. And once Labour committed to end freedom of movement and acknowledge that massive immigration HAD indeed hurt wages will straining public services, it was easy for them to turn the tables on Mrs May, who never really explained her vision for Brexit apart from repeating platitudes like "to get the best deal for Britain" and to champion "the national interest" at the negotiating table. With the Tory party notorious for having more than a whiff of crony capitalism about them, and with Mrs May proposing further corporate tax cuts in the Tory manifesto, suddenly to millions of Leavers (many of whom were lifelong Labour supporters who initially backed Mrs May as the best choice to deliver Brexit), Brexit now had a huge "what if" hanging over it.

Initially viewed as a panacea from neoliberal hell, there now hung this possibility: what if a vote "in the national interest" and "best deal for Britain" secretly meant "in the interest of the Conservative Party to get the best deal for themselves and their gazillionaire tax-avoiding friends"?

And thus, all those years of "never trust a Tory" suspicions came roaring back and an election called on the issue of Brexit became an election on income inequality - and whether you could trust the Tories to deliver a Brexit in the interest of "the many not the few".

Brexit (and this election) was fundamentally a response against neoliberal economics; and the vote against free movement of people and unchecked immigration was, in many ways, a desperate electorate's attempts to save themselves from the exhausting race-to-the-bottom ethos of neoliberal hell.

Exactly. An unfortunate sentence in an otherwise trenchant piece. Brexit is a nationalistic response to social discontent. A "big public investment program" needs to be well-targeted to benefit particular groups and especially austerity-ridden social services. ( I don't imagine that Skidelsky would disagree.)

Interesting, a slight turn. It does leave a serious vulnerability to further inflame tensions though. Restricting immigration from within the EU while some complain of migrants from outside the EU.

On that subject - migrants from MENA lands demolished by the post-Iraq-war adventures - I suppose the nations most responsible should take those refugees. That, unfortunately, would be France and the UK. (Sorry guys, the US isn't going to do it).

American conservatives (ie. Republicans) gave up all pretense of prioritizing "balancing the budget" long ago, with Reagan, and look where THEY'VE ended up: with Donald Trump and some asinine devotion to the empty slogan of "make America great again."

Beware Britain -- the same thing could happen to you. Is happening?

Our political/economic systems appear to be gridlocked in the West, and it may be that _neither_ of the old choices of either austerity or deficit-inducing public investment are going to work this time.

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity." (Yeats)

Curtis its a spelling issue, it was supposed to be 'grate' not great but the confefe got in the way. There was a similar campaign in the UK, known as Grate Britain. It was on the back of a small business initiative, basically you took a large business and waited and you got a small one

DEMOLITION BY BRUSSELS - DISASTER FOR DEMOCRACY
Britain has listened to the Democratic process and mandate.
Theresa May has bravely positioned her Government in accordance with that mandate - for BREXIT.
The General Elections were called to reaffirm - call it a second vote - to assess and fine tune Brexit.
Instead of the Hard Brexit she thought people wanted, it is blatant that the Democratic will is saying - Europe Yes, EU No.
Nothing wrong with that - it is perfectly understandable that The Single Market is Sine qua non.
Democracy in Britain now faces a unelected undemocratic Brussels - that threatens punishment.
Punishment for what - seeking people's mandate to realign Democracy with Economics ??
Fundamentally flawed is the whole foundation - that negates British Democracy and its Mandate.
The entire edifice needs a complete redesign - France and Germany have overplayed their hands.
Punishments for Great Britain - in seeking to align Democracy and Economics - is a recipe for disaster in Europe.
The Institutional Architecture that made Brexit inevitable - needs demolition.
Democracy needs to be respected - not face a demolition squad.

The fear in the US for some appears to be if Trump goes you end up with Pence. In the UK it appears to be if the calendar page turn and May goes in the bin you may end with a BJ

'And who knows: if the negotiations force the EU to re-cast its own commitment to free labor movement, Brexit may turn out to be a matter less of British exit than of an overhaul of the terms of European membership.' Robert you fail to explain why the V4 etc should let this happen as all reform efforts in EU appear to be blockable. Critically, Germany with its ageing demographic wants something in the region of 8 million young educated skilled workers which the current million and a bit mainly economic non-German speaking apparently unskilled migrants cannot help with as history says they will be a burden not a deliverance

There is no confusion in the UK, the voters want their cake and to eat it and the majority are dissatisfied, that is their constant and it is unlikely they will suddenly become satisfied. The prognosis is dissatisfaction continues giving potential volatility at the ballot box. May's disaster was to not recognise that volatility which is just a political advice team way out of touch with the voters, which is where Thatcher ended up. Its a Tory thing, a superiority complex, its their Achilles Heel and they use their own sword given time. Whereas Labour cannot get over seeing everybody else's money as their own - I'm afraid its all g.g. g.g g...gone. Liam Byrne

Harry, Don't be fooled by the mistaken idea that the government depends on taxes for revenue. It doesn't and it doesn't for any monetary sovereign nation [meaning it in total charge of its currency.]
The government chooses not to pay welfare etc because it is a political decision and not an economic one.

The high debt would not be necessary if the government levied the necessary taxes on the business sector where the benefits of the economic system are generated . The major problem with this is the wealthy , elites and corporations regard those benefits as theirs , and theirs alone .
The comment by Andrew Crow s a good example of why the government has had to borrow funds to support necessary social services .

It's really a case of chose your poison, but the biggest poison of all is debt. Labour lean to public debt to enable, whereas Conservatives lean to private individual debt to expand the economy. The problem develops when the debt is longterm in a variable interest and variable income environment. The truly massive expansion in debt says that the past has benefited from expansion via debt and the future will be squeezed due to the limitations on debt expansion and repayment needs. Both parties are caviler and seek the short term because their ticket is short term. Sooner or later you end running out of things to pillage easily which is what happened with the Romans, unless you are careful all that is left then is currency debasement which is, well, what happened with the Romans ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The easiest way to destroy debt is inflation but Conservatives oppose inflation because it also destroys wealth whatever that maybe, it seems to be up for debate at times

Steve, When it suits them, which is most of the time, Tories see public money as their own too. Governments don't have money they only have the tax take. In theory (although the implementation is often poor) Labour tries to spread the benefits across society as a whole and the Tories believe it belongs to them because they have managed to win it or steal it and believe they've earned it and deserve it. Some do, but many really don't.
All governments 'tax and spend'. What they should do is tax and invest. From Thatcher onwards trillions of heritage public assets have been redistributed into private ownership. It is difficult to see that in terms other than theft.

What, more than anything, underlies the confusing nature of the election results is that we have a voting system that is not fit for purpose. The sudden death system of First Past The Post is fine when there is a binary choice. There hasn't been a simple binary choice in the country since...... I don't actually know when.

This leaves voting choices based on voting against a Party and it's policies (many of which never be enacted-and we know it) rather than being able to cast in favour of a Party and it's policies (many of which will never be enacted and we know it).

The case for FPTP that is often made is that it produces a clear majority in the commons. Well it doesn't, does it? And when it does produce a landslide victory for one of the main parties it does so without a corresponding majority of votes. A sensible proportional representation electoral system should be a priority. It is long overdue and doesn't need the farce of a referendum to bring it about.

The UK is not currently democratic in any meaningful way.

Neither of course is the EU which is one reason so many in the UK wish to be out of it. A democratic EU would be worth belonging to.

In common with a lot of people I find it difficult to read pages and tables of numbers.

A voting system has to have the confidence of the electorate so it needs to be expressible in words. That's why FPTP is popular; because it is the simplest of concepts, but it doesn't work where there is more than a binary choice. It doesn't even work then where there is a conflict between votes cast and seats won. Democrats in the US saw Trump triumph with a minority of the popular vote in what was essentially a binary choice. (Sorry. You know this.)

I don't see it as a priority that the system should be designed to produce a majority. (One of the stated aims of PR2) There is nothing inherently wrong with a hung parliament if it reflects the divided opinions of the electorate. If this leads to a more consensual politics so much the better. Thatcher and Blair both had landslide majorities in parliament with well below half of the votes cast. Both abused the power they won. (in my opinion)

The STV system in Scotland for Holyrood elections seems to work well. It is widely believed that this system was foisted on Scotland to prevent the SNP nationalists being able to gain a majority. In that respect it failed while FPTP was delivering hung parliaments in Westminster against its stated aims. The referendum on proposed change to the electoral system for Westminster was cynically manipulated by a campaign which was blatantly disingenuous to the point of outright deceit; which goes to show how easy it is to bamboozle the public.

My favourite example of the demonstrable fairness of STV is that despite gaining only around 7% support in her constituency, Ruth Davidson (whom I personally despise, but who represents a constituency of opinion which in a democracy has a right to be represented) was able to take a seat in Holyrood and indeed become leader of her party there. STV allows the voter to prioritise a local choice and state a party of government choice aswell. Both votes may be cast for the same party or different parties.

Scottish voter intentions in the recent general election for the Westminster parliament are impossible to discern because, being run on FPTP system, tactical voting was rife and targeting of campaign resources and collusion between parties allowed some perverse results in the usual manner of the three horse race. Retrospective application of any PR system to the results of that election would only serve to mislead because of the distortion caused by tactical of voting on the day.
Back testing of election results are not a reliable guide to how a system will work. Too many people cast votes against a candidate or party in a tactical way. STV allows voters to vote FOR what they want. Evidence for the effectiveness of PR2 would be more instructive if tested against STV than FPTP.

Whatever the system it must not only be fair it must be accepted to be fair which means it must be understood by those who are voting.